Posted
by
kdawson
on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @12:43AM
from the as-you-were dept.

linuxwrangler writes "In sharp contrast to the incidents chronicled at Chilling Effects, Second Life creators Linden Labs have sent the parody site Get a First Life a proceed-and-permit letter. From the letter: 'Linden Lab is well-known for having strict hiring standards, including a requirement for having a sense of humor, from which our lawyers receive no exception. In conclusion, your invitation to submit a cease-and-desist letter is hereby rejected.' The letter also grants permission to use the parody logos."

Not to be a noodge, but they've enhanced the joke as far as I'm concerned. I would appreciate Get A First Life without the letter, but the wording in the letter is right on. I bet the legal dept. got with the marketing dept. for that one because the tone is just perfect. Dry, yet actually funny (you've seen companies try too hard I'm sure. This isn't the case.)

In an age of the MAFIAA and other organizations dedicated to maintaining stupid IP laws and restrictive fair use laws, it's nice to see a company realize that a parody only helps them more. After all, this is free PR, and good PR at that.

...it's nice to see a company realize that a parody only helps them more.

Indeed, or even that behaving socially (as opposed to the MPAA's sociopathic actions) is more important that whether or not GetAFirstLife's action helps them. Reading the letter I was struck by just how ridiculous the expected behaviour of companies is. We expect them to act ultra-selfishly - and of course this is covered by the focus of a corporation, profit above all else. But to see a company have some humour, and even grant something it doesn't need to (possibly for a long term profit motive as suggested by parent, but also possibly just because it can and it's nice) shows that the all-profiting, knee jerk bullshit that we are used to is not at all necessary.

I see this complaint all the time, but if something is already modded funny (which doesn't give karma) can't you just mod it underrated- which will give karma and not change the label? That's what I generally do if something is funny enough to be worth karma, or largely funny but also insightful.

Actually, I have visited the site, both now and the first time it was mentioned, and I've read the letter too. While the site is parody, the stuff sold on cafepress with the 'get a first life' logo is in a quasi-grey area, and Linden Labs, by law, has to either defend their trademark or lose it.

While the response from Linden Labs was permissive, in another editorial (the one why Arent Fox sucks) I pick apart the inherent error in judgment sending a stern C&D letter up-front. You can always send a nice letter and follow up with threats if necessary. In the meantime, anyone who woul

it always amazes me to read/hear about corporations that operate with the "profit first" motive. as opposed to some other companies, such as this one, who do something good/funny/charitable in lieu of heavy handing it right away. sure, they could have sent a c&d letter right away, but as other posters have already said, this is a neat way for them to retain their hold without being asshats.
in the longterm, it now endears the company name to people (who also have a sense of humor) who know nothing abou

It's not even a "profit first" motive -- it's an "aggression first" motive.

Indeed. For a nice encapsulation of this concept, see the Jargon File entry for the term "hollised [catb.org]". Though it refers specifically to over-reactionary policies on public postings by an organization's own employees, it can carry over to any of that sort of knee-jerk aggression. The last sentence is especially relevant:

Use of this term carries the strong connotation that the persons doing the gagging are bureaucratic idiots blinded to their own best interests by territorial reflexes.

Acting in the "community" way is the selfish thing to do most of the time -- it's just a sort of long-term selfishness that many businesses can't seem to appreciate. It's guaranteeing that there will be an ecosystem for you to be part of down the road, instead of alienating/bankrupting/killing all of your potential customers and partners.

You'd think that, but when there isn't an obvious opportunity for good PR, Linden Lab is even more proactive in chilling efforts. This article [secondlifeherald.com] details how they sent a frantic letter to the CBC to keep a critic from speaking out on a radio show. Not that you'd ever know it from the mainstream media's lack of coverage.

I resent you comparing the RIAA to the Mafia. The Mafia has traditionally increased people's freedom and personal choice (by providing goods and services that wouldn't be available via traditional sources because of government prohibition), while the RIAA decreases people's freedom and personal choice by encouraging government prohibition.

LOL. I really don't think it exists. That has always been my counter-example to my friends' claims that you can find anyting on the internet. In fact, I once offered up a prize of first, a case of beer, but later upped it to $100 to any one of my group friends who could legitimately find porn with cheerios on the internet. Nobody won the bet. (Of course, I was also drunk so it may have just been that nobody believed I would actually follow through on my bet.:)

Hey, furries bring the funk...unfortunately, some fanboys bring more than their fair share;3. Plus, that dance may not even be copyrightable. As it was created prior to 1978, the rules on copyright are a lot different, and it seems that Mr. Silver doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on.

Copyright and trademark are different situations. To protect your trademark(logo, company name, etc) you MUST take action to protect it. If you ignore it, you may lose your trademark protection. If you license/permit the usage to a group, this is seen as a way to protect your trademark since you've considered the usage and allowed the parties to use the trademark.

If they did nothing at all, that would cause potential problems. Their response is both classy, and covers their ass.

I'd disagree. A tip of the hat without a license would serve just as much purpose. Hell, saying nothing at all wouldn't cause any problems, all things considered. Obvious parody is something that weighs heavy in trademark rulings, so it is doubtful that any sort of acknowledgment is needed in this situation.

If you do not take steps to protect your trademark by either threatening to sue or---apparently, because I've never seen it done like this until now---granting permission, then if someone does end up violating your trademark, no matter how flagrantly, they can argue (and successfully at that) that the mark has been diluted and is therefore invalid. You snooze, you lose.

Interestingly, a recent instance of this happening was when Sega Europe fired off a nastygram [ytmnd.com] to YTMND [ytmnd.com] regarding an instance of [ahem] unsavory treatment [link NSFW] [ytmnd.com] of a certain trademarked character. Sega can't do anything right these days. If you read the C&D, you can tell it's pure BS, but it's this aspect of trademark law (i.e., needing to defend marks in such an asshatterous manner) that gets it put on my personal proscription list, along with copyright and patent.

I'm not so certain in cases like this. There are plenty of situations of comedic movies where a trademark is parodied and no such mention of licensing is made. Perhaps certain litigious parties would like people to believe that one has to file claims against every usage, regardless of how small, but precedent seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm not so certain in cases like this. There are plenty of situations of comedic movies where a trademark is parodied and no such mention of licensing is made. Perhaps certain litigious parties would like people to believe that one has to file claims against every usage, regardless of how small, but precedent seems to suggest otherwise.

The Get A First Life people need to find a lawyer to slam Linden Labs for denying him work, and suggesting that he could get an injunction against the 'proceed and permit' letter under `restraint of trade` laws.

Oh, I can think of others. Is the sense of humour strict? If not, then the letter is false advertising. Is the act of rejecting an invitation a cease and desist of the parody (for once rejected, it is no longer parody but being parodied)? Is it even lawful for a lawyer to have a sense of humour?

What are you talking about? This is slashdot! Land of the geeks and nerds who spend hours formulating arguments to debate trivial things that can be pages long; anything from the difference between geeks and nerds, the proper use of a semicolon (is this sentence correct?) to Java vs. C++ (apples and oranges, there I finished it, don't bother debating).

In all seriousness, that is why I love slashdot, you get to see all sorts of opinions and as long as the arguments aren't inflammatory and make a bit of sens

What's with all the lawyer bashing and paranoia? These guys are clearly making fun of him.
Just because the person is a lawyer, doesn't mean he is out to rip you off.
There are plenty of good lawyers around. In fact, most lawyers wouldn't do
something unethical just because it pays so handsomely well.

Trademarks need to be fought for, otherwise they are useless. This is actually IMHO a very brilliant move by Linden to maintain their hold on their trademarks without being a complete asshole about it.

Agreed. If you read the letter, at the very bottom, they grant a license to use the parody logo on products sold at the CafePress store, just in case one is needed. For example, someone wanting to use the proper trademark could convince the court that such commercial activity wasn't fair use, and that a license was needed, and since Linden Labs didn't enforce or license the mark, it should be invalidated. This covers their ass while still allowing the parody.

How ever came up with the respons at Linden Labs should get a bonus, turing something that would have been negative news into something both funny, positive and yet still manage to defened their tradmark.

I believe the Google ads were there the first time I saw that page, which was before the letter from Linden. It makes sense that Google would cough up Second-Life-related ads for that page, since it doesn't have any subject matter beyond a Second Life spoof to base AdSense on.

This is actually quite smart from a legal point of view. Once Second Life had decided not to go down the road of trying to sue the parody site into oblivion - a wise decision given the PR meltdown such cases tend to cause - it then had a choice.

If it ignored the parody site, that could dilute or otherwise weaken its trade mark rights, making it harder to take action against truly problematic infringement in future. However, by sending a "permit-and-proceed" letter, it not only gets some positive PR for taking a pragmatic and humorous approach - it also transforms the parody site from a trademark-diluting independent endeavour into something that is, in effect, licensed by Second Life. This means they can still be seen to have asserted their trade mark rights rather than allowing the parody site to continue without any intervention at all.

A similar position can arise in relation to land, at least under English law. If someone encroaches on your land for a sufficiently long period of time (12+ years) and you do nothing about it one way or another, you can lose your rights in the land (many people living near railway lines have extended their gardens to the edge of the line by these means). However, if you say to the encroacher, "Oh, that's fine, carry on, I don't mind, you have my permission", then that turns it into a licence, and they cannot then claim "adverse possession" against you later.

Despite never being able to quite get myself into a frame of mind where I'd enjoy second life, I've always liked the management. They've always seemed oddly sane, given not only the industry, but the fringe subset they've founded.

The letter (and some of the resulting comments) remind me that there are dim lawyers, smart lawyers, and truly smart lawyers. Linden Labs can obviously afford truly smart lawyers.

Remember, a lawyer is paid to advise you on your legal interests. A merely smart lawyer knows what plays well in court. A truly smart lawyer knows that public opinion is also a court, and that the best interests of the client involve playing well there as well. The RIAA merely has smart lawyers; they are trying to spread compliance

Second Life is run by geeks, and I bet they read Slashdot. They know full well what will turn their customers away. I bet they have explicit instructions for their legal team not to C&D anyone without express permission from the owners.

Aristophanes wrote a play titled "The Clouds," in which he lambasted the state of education in ancient Athens. In the process, he also lampooned Socrates, who was depicted as one of the corrupters of youth... even though public opinion at the time considered him no such thing.Socrates attended the production of the play... and laughed as uproariously as anyone else at his on-stage caricature.

Mind you, he might not have had the same remedies available as today had he been thoroughly offended by the play, but

The "offending" sight seems awfully slim. I get the sense that this whole exchange might be a bit of a publicity ploy to promote Second Life.

That's an interesting thought, and if so then I would guess it would be an employee of Linden Labs. However after looking it over I'm inclined to think that perhaps you might be only half right -- that while it's a publicity maneuver (and a very clever one at that) it was designed to protect their intellectual property at the same time.

I have a better sense of humor than this feeble attempt at attracting attention.

I don't understand. Are you grumpy because:(a) They are succeeding at attracting attention;(b) You are not succeeding at attracting attention, despite your grumpiest attempts;(c) You discovered that www.getafirstlife.com is not actually functional

The law does have quite a bit of humour, you just have to be a lawyer or someone with legal training to appreciate it.

For example, a workers law here in Germany requires the top boss to talk to the elected workers' council at least once a month. Let me skip the why and boring details. One company persistently rejected to even acknowledge that elected body even existed, much less deal with them.

So one court case later, the judgement was to take the offenders into custody. It's called "Beugehaft" in Germany, the idea being that for minor crimes where fines aren't the proper punishment because what you want is someone to do something, you take him into custody until he says "ok, ok". Now here's the joke: The judgement called for this punishment to be levied on the entire board of directors, and immediately due to the danger of them fleeing. The people who thought they were above it all were in immediate danger of being put behind bars within the hour. And sure, they could call for revision, but they'd still be taken from their office by police and spend at least one night in jail.A bunch of frentic phonecalls later, the CEO had binding instructions to cooperate fully with the workers council.

Lawyers laugh as much as anyone. It's just that most of their jokes are as puzzling to us as C++ jokes are to your grandmother.

If you think computers (and compilers) don't have a sense of humor, you've never programmed. I can't count the number of times I've been coding and random nonsense errors start happening, and rebooting was the solution to the problem, not bad code. I just -know- it's laughing at me every time that happens. (Granted, it's only ever happened to me on Windows, but I haven't done much Linux programming in C.)

"FU and the virtual horse you rode in on" to Linden Labs in regards to this letter -- especially the final sentence This license may be modified, addended, or revoked at any time by Linden Lab in its sole discretion.

They acknowledge First Life's inherent right to parody several times, even jokingly stated that they were insulted by the idea that their lawyers WOULDN'T recognize such a right. The only "license" here is a license for the derivative trademark, which they note "may require a license." Notice they didn't say "does require a license." It's more, "Hey, we think this probably falls under fair use. But just in case it doesn't, and anyone ever hassles you about it, here's a license saying you can use it anyway."

The final clause is standard CYA language. If, for example, First Life started using their derivative logo to do something damaging to Second Life's reputation, Second Life's lawyers may look into it, and if, in fact, the logo is infringing, they may revoke the license. Surely you can't reasonably expect them to grant them a perpetual, non-revokable license to do anything they want with a very slightly modified logo?

The whole thing's basically a joke anyway, to let everyone know that they know about First Life, and are 100% OK with it. It's also a cheap jab at companies with less sense of humor.

I agree with your whole post except for this bit. "Cheap" inexpensive, sure. Usually "cheap" has negative connotations though, which I don't think apply to this. I think it's a pretty classy jab at companies with less sense of humor.

The parody site operator of getafirstlife.com should reject this letter immediately. How many companies in the future will start referring to this action as a basis to stop "fair use"? i.e., "Hey, we didn't provide you with a proceed-and-permit letter.

You should get to know Jack Thompson. My gut tells me you'll do incredible things together.

Actually they'd be right to ignore it. If they accept it or reject or respond in any way they legitimise it. In any case being granted permission does not set a precedent that you MUST be granted permission. If my boss tells me I can go to the doctor if I'm seriously ill and need urgent medical attention it does not mean that if he doesn't give permission the next time I'm ill that I can't go. No license needed to be granted here. I believe parody is protected under US laws, though I'm not a US citizen and

The parody site operator of getafirstlife.com should reject this letter immediately. How many companies in the future will start referring to this action as a basis to stop "fair use"?

Wow. Layoff the paranoia pipe a bit. Everyone knows that parody is OK. It has been for years. Companies have been parodied on Saturday Night Live since the stoner age. If they were gonna get the fair use provisions relating to parody changed, they would have done it already.

Secondly, if we want companies to be good citizens and respectful of individual's rights, should not also individuals respect companies when the company does something right? I do. I went to second life from the first life page and signed up for an account. Who woulda thought they actually have a linux version (alpha) for the game?

What I see is a company that is not full of pricks, plus they supply a linux version of the game. Isn't that what (we linux users at least) have been saying would be great? I say that's worthy of my support so I flipped them a few bucks.

I haven't gotten mine to work at *all*. When I try and launch it, it throws some screen up about how it can't open a new window. Do you have a firewall? What ports do you open? (I read what Linden sez about it and opened those, but still no good.) I'm almost desperate enough to make a Windows install just to see if the problem is my linux setup.

My experience is the same (it works fine). I downloaded it and stuck it in my home dir. Using a terminal, I moved the SL dir, ran./secondlife and then stayed up till 5:00 am. My desktop is Edgy Eft with an older nvidia card. It connects to a router which connects to an old computer acting as a firewall, and from there to the internet. The linux client worked fine for me all night, never crashing. Too bad in a way because I'm beat today.

This license may be modified, addended, or revoked at any time by Linden Lab in its sole discretion.

This was taken out of context. It simply is in refrence to the online store selling items with the modified logo. If the site creator got out of line with the products with the modified logo, they simply reserve the right to revoke the license to use the logo. The fact they granted a license to use the mofified logo is without fees or royalty payments is very gracious.

Try using the Mickey Mouse logo in a modified form on your website in a paradoy and sell products with the logo. I doubt the Disney lawyers have a sense of humor regarding selling products with a Mickey logo.